Now, imagine Donald Trump leading the response to ISIL

I went to bed thinking that the latest from Donald Trump — his baffling interview and related encounters with the Washington Post editorial board Monday — was just another endless chapter in this jackwagon being a jackwagon. Wondering how anyone would trust this man with the country's future, I nonetheless mused: "What more is there to say — his legion of supporters clearly don't care."

Then I woke up to the terrible news out of Brussels, where the death toll continues to rise, and I thought about Donald Trump being the country's commander in chief.

Please read the full transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the Post' editorial board. Especially read it if you are a Trump supporter, know someone who is or think the election doesn't matter. Then consider whether you read anything of substance — anything more than a compilation of his empty, vague and deflecting remarks.

These are deadly serious times. Even with the most sober, experienced leadership, all of our futures — and more importantly our children's futures — hang in the balance. With Trump in charge, the situation seems mostly hopeless.

As we consider the tragedy in Brussels, this key moment in Trump's interview with the Post provides considerable timely insight:

Asked by Post publisher Fred Ryan about whether he would approve a tactical nuclear strike against the forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL; also referred to as ISIS), were he president, Trump said he didn't want to "start the process of nuclear" then veered off to talk about being "a counterpuncher." He rambled back into criticism toward former rivals Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and crowed about how he counterpunched them.

Reminded by the Post publisher that the question was about the Islamic State — "You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?" — Trump not only didn't respond to the question but veered like this:

Seriously. He responded to a question about ISIL by going completely off-topic — and off-topic into the most trivial of subjects.

This exchange occurs well into the interview; it was clearly a deflection. Sadly, the editors complied with Trump's question and the ISIL topic was dropped.

On Monday night, before the latest reminder of terrorism's grip on the world, I was most incensed by Trump's awful encounter at the Post with the Opinions Deputy Digital Editor Karen Attiah. She had pressed Trump — mostly unsuccessfully — during the meeting about racial disparities.

As he was leaving, he turned to her and said: "I really hope I answered your question, and added casually with a smile, "Beautiful."

As Attiah wrote after the encounter: "I stayed in the conference room for a few minutes as it sunk in that the potential GOP nominee for president thought it was okay to comment on my appearance. Did he just say that?"

It's sick and it's creepy.

I thought hard about including this material about Trump's sexist remarks in this article. After all, people are dead in Brussels.

But the fact is that there's a strong thread that connects Trump's nonanswers Monday about ISIL and his remark to Attiah: He is reckless, he is dismissive and in his "I'm the king" world, he will simply lie and deflect, even when confronted with facts.

The only thing scarier than ISIL is the thought of Donald Trump leading this country in its fight against terrorism.